In this article some issues
about the theory of societal complexity are explained: what are complex societal
problems and how should these be handled. The problem of climate change is used
as an illustration. The Compram methodology is a methodology based on the theory
of societal complexity that gives guidelines to handle real life complex
societal problems such as climate change. Handling according to the Compram
methodology supports defining and changing a complex societal problem in a
sustainable way. In this article the focus of the methodology is on the relation
between the steps in the Compram methodology and the problem-handling phases.

We like to use climate
change as an example of thinking and handling on a real life problem and
illustrated by this example some issues on the theory of societal complexity and
the methodology of societal complexity:the Compram methodology[1].

Recently, the scientific
debate on climate change is politically engaged and popularised. However, the
topic is often oversimplified. More and more alarming publications on fast
climate change appear in the media (Knip, 2007;
Rosenthal, 2007; Gore,
2006; Gore, 2007). The issue of fast climate
change, also referred to as global warming, already discussed in scientific
circles for a long time (Brundtland, 1988; Legget, 1990), and put on the
political agenda (Rio de Janeiro, 1992; Kyoto Protocol,1997[2];
Davos, 2007), is recently popularized. The issue of climate change has become a
popular, scientific, as well as, a political issue (Luttikhuis,
2007; De Rijk, 2007).
Climate change is not only a concern for physics, but it also concerns the
society as such (Becker, 1987, 1995, 2003; Utsumi, 2006). Climate change effects
nature, which in turn affects people. This means, that political interventions
should be considered. How should this be dealt with?

2 Is the climate changing?

In the last two decades,
there are many debates on climate change (Beckman, 1992; Stuhler & DeTombe,
1999; IPCC, 2000; Geurts & Van Dorland, 2005). The milder temperature and the
melting of the ice caps are considered indications of climate change, however,
some people still question the issue and are not sure whether there is a climate
change. The evidence of a faster than usual change is questioned by some people[3].
Although the world’s climate changes regularly during the 4,5 billion years that
the earth exists, it is the speed, in which the changes occurred in these last
decades, that worries people. Our interest in the discussion on the climate
issue is: when the climate is changing much faster than usual, what effect will
this have on the living conditions of humans, animals and the vegetation? Is
climate change a complex societal issue?

3 Is the climate issue a
complex societal problem?

With a world wide debate on
climate change our question is: ‘Is the climate issue a complex societal
problem?’ If so, the issue should be addressed according to the theory of
societal complexity (DeTombe, 1994)[4].

To see just how climate
change is a complex societal problem (see Figure 1) we follow the steps of the
Compram methodology (see Figure 2) and the phases of the problem-handling
process of societal complex problems (see Figure 3).

A complex
societal problem is a real life problem, which
has a large and often different impact on
different groups of society. The problem has
often an impact on all levels of the society on
the micro, meso and macro levels (Phrase1).

It often
seems that the problem suddenly ‘pops-up’. The
problem is dynamic; it changes during its
development. The future development of the
problem is uncertain (Phrase 2).

It is
difficult to become aware of the problem and
difficult to put it on the political agenda. It
is difficult to get grip on the problem; to
handle the problem. Only changes are possible,
no ‘solutions’ (Phrase 3).

The problem consist of many phenomena which are
complicatedly intertwined with each other
(Phrase 4)

The
problem has knowledge, power and emotional
components.
Often there is a lack of knowledge, the data are
incomplete, uncertain or in contradiction with
each other. The problem is interdisciplinary and
it takes theories from different fields to
explain what is happening (Phrase 5).

There are
many parties involved[5].
Each party has a different view on the problem;
a different definition of the problem, and has
different goals and desires. The parties often
have different ‘solutions’ to the problem. The
different parties involved have different power
over the problem (Phrase 6).

The
problem often provokes much emotion in society
(Phrase 7).

Figure 1The Compram definition of societal complexity

step 1analysis and description of the problem
by a team of neutral content

experts

step 2analysis and description of the problem
by different teams of actors

step 3identification of interventions by
experts and actors

step 4anticipation of the societal reactions

step 5implementation of the interventions

step 6evaluation of the changes

Figure 2:
The six steps of the Compram methodology

Sub-cycle 1: Defining the problem

phase 1.1becoming aware of the problem and forming
a (vague) mental idea phase 1.2extending the rough idea by reflection
and research

For answering the question:
‘Is the current rapid climate change a complex societal problem?’, we have to
compare the definition of societal complexity with the information we have on
climate change.

Phrase1:
A complex societal problem is a real life problem, which has a large and often
different impact on different groups of society. The problem has often an impact
on all levels of the society on the micro, meso and macro levels.

An answer to the first
Phrase of the definition of societal complexity can be found by performing on phase 1.1 and phase 1.2
of the problem-handling process
(see Figure 3). Phase
1.1 of the problem-handling process is awareness; awareness of the problem.
Awareness of the problem is to be aware that there is a problem and that the
problem is interesting enough to spend more time on, because it is, or can
become, a complex societal problem, which means a problem that can cause much
trouble, ifnot properly reacted
upon[6].
Being so much in the news, in the media: the daily news papers[7],
television, in popular scientific journals as well as discussed in scientific
journals, we are convinced, that there is a large public awareness of the
climate issue; often addressed as climate change (Milieu en Natuur Planbureau,
2007a, p. 9).

Having established that
there is an awareness of the issue of climate change, one can continue the
problem-handling process with the second phase of the problem-handling process,
the phase of the mental idea. By reading, thinking and discussing about the
issue one gets a mental idea ofthe
problem[8].
Reading about climate change one sees, that the earth had many periods of
climate change, actually the climate changes all the time (Legget, 1990, p.20)[9].
Take, for instance, The Netherlands, a country in Northern Europe, which at
present has a moderate sea climate. The ground of the Netherlands shows glacial
periods. The former cold period called ‘the small ice age’ was quite recently
from 1230 until 1850 C.E.[10].

Climate changes in the past
were not caused by human actions. They were caused by changing of solar
activity, by volcanic activities, and were influenced by impact of meteorites.There have always been climate changes on earth and there probably always
will be climate changes.

When the climate changes
slowly, as most of the changes of the past, it is possible for most species to
adapt. In that case it is not a complex societal issue, because it has not such
an direct impact on society. It is only a complex societal issue, when changes
go so fast that human interference is necessary to protect life, nature and
goods. According to alarming messages predictions are, that, without changing
policy, the temperature will rise 2 to 3 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years
(Otten, 2005; Gore, 2006)[11].This rising of the temperature is an indication for climate change.

3.3 What are the effects of
the rising temperature?

The increasing temperature
causes the melting of the permafrost. The open water around the North Pole and
ice in the mountain areas, as in India and in the Alps, are melting, which makes
the sea level rise. This can cause flooding in low coastal areas, such as in
Asia: the coastal area of Bangladesh, and inEurope: in The Netherlands, in America: the area of New Orleans (see
Schema 1) (IPCC, 2000, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). Other effects of climate changes
seem to be the more frequent and stronger hurricanes, the heavier winds and
rainfalls in the northern hemisphere, and the dry out of large pieces of land[12].
It also seems to have an influence on changing the biodiversity (Milieu en
Natuur Planbureau, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c, 2007d).

The rising of the sea level
is a threat for low coastal areas. The Netherlands is a low coastal area, which
is for more than 40 per cent under or round sea level (see Figure 4) (RIVM,
2004a, 2004b).For this country
already a small rising of the sea level could, when combined with stormy weather
in the direction ofthe coast, full
moon and high tide, create a flood in large parts of the country[13].
For a well organized and relatively rich country like The Netherlands, it is
possible to cope with this threat. There is knowledge, skills and money enough
to handle the new situation. For instance by enlarging the already existing
artificial barriers, such as the dykes and flood barriers.

However, for a developing
country like Bangladesh, this could be an unmitigatable disaster. There is no
money enough to protect the land from flooding, or, if necessary, to move
people, living in the delta of the river, to a safer place of existence.

The main reason for worrying
is, that, because of the fast rising of the temperature, it is very hard to be
ready with the appropriate measures on time. The rich countries can adapt more
easily and faster then the less developed countries. As in many other problems,
the developing countries and regions (arctic) are suffering the most.

3.5 Causes of climate change

One reason for the rapid
climate change is indicated to be caused by too much CO2
(carbon dioxide)emission.
Although the main greenhousegas
emission CO2
(carbon dioxide) is not the only biogas emission that should be diminished.
The other
greenhouse gases that
should be
diminished are
laughing gas (N2O nitrous oxide), methane (CH4) and F
gases like fluorine/ containing gases as HFK, PFK, SF3 (see Figure
5). CO2emission is mainly
caused by burning fossil fuel. Burning tropical wood gives also a surplus of CO2
instead of absorbing CO2. Most serious methane gas emissions
comes from cows.

Human activities are the
main cause of biogas emission: so called anthropogenic emissions(Milieu en Natuur Planbureau, 2007a). Human actions
seems to be a major co-cause factor of the rapid climate change.
The energy industry,
to a high degree privatised, extracts from the earth huge amounts of fossil fuel
to produce energy carriers such as oil, gas and cokes supplies. The energy
industry sector is stimulated to supply ready to use energy via oil, gas and
electricity by the demand of the general industry, the transportations systems
(cars, trains, airplanes) and for business and private houses. In the past
century the energy was mainly used by western consumption[16].
A small part of humanity used, in the time span of a century, enormous amounts
of fossil assets, which took the earth millions of years to create. And by doing
this on such a large scale, caused, in conjunction with various reinforcing
feedback processes, global warming. Fossil materials are the mutual inheritance
of all humans; past, present and future. This is an example of privatizing the
benefits for a few people and socializing the debts for all.

3.6 Is climate issue a
complex societal problem?

Now that the mental idea on
the climate change has been elaborated by reading, discussing and thinking one
can continue the discussion ‘is the climate change issue a complex societal
issue?’ Therefore we refer again to the Phrase 1 of the definition of societal
complexity (see Figure1). We can
concluded that the climate change has a large and varied impact on different
groups of society. The problem has often an impact on all levels of society on
micro, meso and macro level. The sea level is rising because of melting of perm
frost. This has an impact on low coastal zones. This impact is negative for
communities living in low coastal zones, but can have a positive effect on the
flood prevention industry. Climate change has an impact on the whole world, on
the macro level; onmeso level: the
level of the government; and on micro level; the level of a city, an individual
tax payer or a coastal inhabitant.

Phrase 2: It seems often that the problem
suddenly ‘pops-up’. The problem is dynamic; it changes during its development.
The future development of the problem is uncertain.

Looking at Phrase 2 one sees that in the
last five years the problem of climate change suddenly seems to ‘pop-up’.
However, this is seen from a popular media point of view. This issue is already
on the scientific agenda for more than two decades (Legget, 1990), and even
longer. this issue is already discussed two centuries ago by Joseph Fourier
(Fourier, 1827),
John Tyndall (Tyndal, 1861) and by
Svante Arrhenius (Arrhenius, 1896). The future development of the problem is
uncertain.

Phrase 3: It is often difficult to become
aware of the problem and difficult to put it on the political agenda. It is
difficult to get grip on the problem; to handle the problem. Only changes are
possible, no ‘solutions’.

Looking at Phrase 3 we see that it took a
while before people became aware that a part of the CO2 emission cannot be absorbed completely in
nature any more and that the residue provokes temperature changes all over the
world. It took years to get a vague ideawhat is happening, what and who causes the changes, and what the effects
are. Easy solutions are not to be found here. Total forbidding digging and using
fossil fuel is no solution, because of political and economical reasons, unless
there are acceptable substitutes.

Phrase 4: The problem consists ofmanyphenomena which are
complicatedly intertwined with each other.

In Schema 1 and 2 there is a chain of
cause and effects indicating that many phenomena are involved which are
complicatedly intertwined with each other.

Phrase
5: Often there is a
lack of knowledge, the data are incomplete, uncertain or in contradiction with
each other. The problem is interdisciplinary and it takes theories from
different fields to explain what is happening.

There is a lack of knowledge and the
data are incomplete, uncertain or in contradiction with each other. What really
is happening with the melting ice caps is not sure. What is the feedback effect
of the changing of the warm and cold (under)current in the Atlantic ocean? What
is the effect of climate change on human health? What is the effect on
agriculture? How much is the amount of cultural land changing due to changes in
rainfall and dry periods?[17]
What is the effect on different species? Are species vanishing, are new ones
arriving? Are species moving to other areas because of the changing temperature?
How are CO2, and the Ozone layer (O3) and climate change
related (IPCC, 2007c)? How this really works is not very clear yet. Climate
change is an interdisciplinary problem, which takes different fields to explain
what is happening. Knowledge about this problem comes from different disciplines
such as the field of geology which has knowledge about the fossil remains and
layers, the field of mining and drilling (digging fossil fuel), the field of
chemistry on knowledge on burning fossil fuel and processing this into oil, gas
and cokes for energy, knowledge on bio gas emissions, the field of energy
industry on knowledge about production of energy from fossil fuel and from
alternative energy sources, the field of economy, which has knowledge on prices
of energy and alternative energy, the field of law on knowledge about rules,
regulations, restrictions and steering elements, the field of political sciences
on knowledge about world wide organizations, policy of energy producing states,
on how the climate issue influences the next elections in different countries,
the field of psychology on knowledge on emotions like fear and anger and the
willingness to use alternative energy or to accept a more sustainable living(DeTombe, 2008),knowledge
from the field of sociology to see how groups react, knowledge from the field of
biology on the effect of climate change on different species and the field of
agriculture on food production. Theories of different disciplines are needed to
understand what is going on.

Phrase 6: There are many parties involved. Each
party has a different view on the problem; a different definition of the
problem, and has different goals and desires. The parties often have different
‘solutions’ to the problem. The different parties involved have different power
over the problem.

Which parties, actors,
stakeholders are involved in the problem of climate change? Many parties are
involved as for instance mining companies, energy industry, oil and gas
companies, like Shell and Esso, transportation industry, local and general
governments, agricultural businesses, water management industry, companies in
flood prevention and coastal preserve.

Phrase 7: The problem often provokes much emotion
in society.

We
see that in the media (Gore, 2006) as well as on the decision level (NRC, 2007)
the issue of climate change provokes much emotions. People are feeling
uncertain, uneasy, provoked, angry, and worried about the climate issue, or on
the other hand, see opportunities to earn money. This includes the emotion
mentioned in Phrase 4.

In conclusion we can say
that climate change is a
real life problem. It has indeed a large
and varied impact on different groups of society. The
problem has an impact on all levels of society micro, meso and macro level. It
seems that the problem suddenly ‘popped-up’. The future development of
the problem is uncertain. It is difficult to become
aware of the problem (Beckman, 1992) and difficult to put it on the political
agenda[18].

It is difficult to get grip on the
problem and to handle the problem. Only changes are possible, no ‘solutions’.The problem consists of many phenomena, which are complicatedly
intertwined with each other. The problem has
knowledge, power and emotional components. Often there is a lack of
knowledge, the data are incomplete, uncertain or in contradiction with each
other. The problem is interdisciplinary. It includes knowledge about energy,
water, vegetation, woods, agriculture (Boere, 2007a; Boere, 2007b; Boere, 2007;
Boere, & Fokkens, 2007), land protection, chemical reactions, sea levels and
ocean currents and political knowledge. It needs theories from different fields
to explain what is happening. There are many parties
involved. Each party has a different view on the problem, a different definition
of the problem, and has different goals and desires towards the problem. The
parties often have different ‘solutions’ for the problem. The different parties
involved have different power over the problem. The problem provokes much
emotion in society. Based on this we can conclude that the climate issue
is a complex societal problem.Therefore one
should address this issue according to the theory of societal complexity
(DeTombe, 1994).

4 Phase 1.3 of the
problem-handling process: putting the issue on a political agenda and take the
decision to handle it: the problem owner

Now that we have concluded
that the climate issue is a complex societal issue we continue the discussion
with phase 1.3 of the problem-handling process: putting the issue on the
political agenda by a problem owner and see whether there is a willingness to
handle the issue.After becoming aware
that there is something going on with the climate issue which can have serious
implications like the rising of the sea level due to the melting of the ice
caps, one could decide that this must be put on a political agenda. The issue
should be put on the agenda of the legitimate problem owner. Then the question
is: ´On which political agenda should the issue be placed?´ Who, which institute
is a legitimate problem owner of this issue of the climate change[19]?

In the case of climate
change the legitimate problem owner is not defined yet. The problem owner should
be found on the macro level: a world wide recognized authority; authorized by
the majority of states. It can be a temporarily cooperation like that of the
Kyoto conference in 1997 or Bali conference in 2007. When it is not possible to
start directly on the appropriate level, a start at a lower level can be
considered. The political pressure group which is aware of the problem, and
which can consists of a group of actors, can put pressure on a problem owner to
put the issue on her/his political agenda. The pressure group can also try to
forma cooperation on macro level.
When the problem owner is indicated, or created, the political pressure group
can lobby to put this problem on her/his political agenda. Then the problem
owner can discuss, whether there is enough political interest and willingness to
start handling the complex societal issue.

5 The Compram methodology: a
method to handle societal complexity

When it has been decided to handle the complex societal issue, it should be
handled according to a theory of societal complexity. The Compram methodology,
which is based on a theory of societal complexity, is developed to handle
complex societal problems. The legitimate problem owner can now give an
assignment to a facilitator to address the issue based on the directions of the
Compram methodology. The Compram methodology is based on the idea that complex
societal problems involve three basic elements:
knowledge, power and emotion.

5.1 Three basic in the
Compram methodology elements knowledge, power and emotion.

Knowledge includes lack of knowledge, data with an uncertain status, missing
data, contradictory data, white spots and blind spots[20].
Knowledge includes knowledge of the disciplines involved, field knowledge, and
knowledge about the actors and the phenomena. Complex societal problems involve
many disciplines, many fields, many phenomena and many actors. One person is not
able to comprehend all the knowledge needed for handling a complex societal
problem. The knowledge needed to analyze and handle is too complicated. The way
Compram deals explicitly with knowledge is to start analyzing the problem with a
team of experts. This team must analyze the problem and find interventions. Each
expert has a part of the knowledge. The team of experts together has knowledge
of the disciplines involved, knowledge about the fields, knowledge about the
actors, and knowledge about the phenomena. The experts have the ability to
interpret the knowledge from other areas and determine the knowledge on
consequences in their own field of expertise. The knowledge experts are, in
contrast to the actors, neutral towards the outcome of the problem handing
process.

At several moments in the problem-handling process the Compram methodology deals
explicitly with power. Power is another
basic element in handling complex societal problems. The Compram methodology
deals with power differences by starting the problem-handling process with a
neutral knowledge expert team in order to neutralize the knowledge[21].
This is step 1 of the Compram methodology (see Figure 2). The expert team
prevents at an early stage of the problem-handling process, that certain
solutions are stimulated at the expense of other solutions. Working with experts
first means that there are less chances that important issues are overlooked.
Complex societal problems involve actors. The actors have direct interest in
certain kinds of outcome of the problem.
The expert team analyzes the power and steering instruments of the actors.

The Compram methodology includes the power of the actors by inviting them to the
problem-handling process in step 2. The actors define in this step the problem,
their handling space and their desired goals. Each actor group does this with
their own team. Power plays an important role in coming to an agreement between
actors. Each actor has its own steering instruments to support, change or
prevent changes.

The Compram methodology deals with societal power in step 4 by giving the
society a chance to react on the selected interventions before implementing the
interventions carefully[22].

Emotion is the third basic
component in handling complex societal problems. Emotions are everywhere in
societal problems. There are emotions in with the people who effected by this
problem, in a positive or negative way, in the media as well as in the
problem-handling process itself. Emotions can stimulate or block certain
changes. Emotions play a role or become visible when one’s personal interest is
attacked (Frijda, 1986).

Emotions are involved in
different views on society and prioritizing certain changes.

The media can provokes many
emotions by a certain way of reporting about the climate issue.

Complex societal problems are
handled by teams of people. Where people are involved, emotions are involved.
Emotions are included in like and dislike of persons in the team. Emotions play
a role in reaching a certain goal, or in being included or excluded in a
problem-handling process. Negative emotions can be provoked by excluding persons
from the problem-handling process. Including the actors at an early stage in the
problem-handling process can prevent (avoidable) obstruction later on in
the problem-handling process.

The Compram methodology deals with
emotions by prescribing that the process is led by a well skilled facilitator,
trained in handling group processes, in order to avoid unnecessary group
conflicts.

5.2 The
six steps in the Compram methodology

The
Compram methodologyconsists of six
steps (see Figure 2).
These six steps give the main guidelines for handling a complex societal
problem. Within the steps there is room for applying all kind of methods and
tools.

In the
first step, the problem is analyzed and described by a team of neutral content
experts. In the second step, the different actors analyze and define the
problem. The third step is where the experts and actors try to find
interventions, that are mutually acceptable. In the fourth step the societal
reactions of the selected interventions are anticipated. In the fifth step the
interventions are implemented. Then in step six the changes are evaluated from
the original perspective as well of the perspective of the problem as it changed
during the process. Also the problem-handling process itself is evaluated in
this step[23].

6 Step 1 of the Compram
methodology and phases 1.4 to 2.4 of the problem-handling process

In the following part we
continue to explain the handling of a complex societal problem with the Compram
methodology, indicating the relation between the steps in the Compram
methodology and the phases of the problem-handling process. The steps
should notbe confused with phases
in the problem-handling process (see Figure 3).

The first step of the Compram
methodology consist of the problem-handling phases 1.4 to phase 2.4 (see Figure
3). We start the discussion with step 1 of the Compram methodology and the
problem-handling phase 1.4.

6.1
Step 1.1 of the Compram methodology and
phase1.4 of the problem-handling process: the facilitator and the experts

The
Compram methodology starts at the moment the problem owner asks a facilitator to
handle the problem according to the directions of the Compram methodology. This
is step 1.1 of the Compram methodology and phase 1.4 of the problem-handling
process.

The
facilitator starts the process of problem-handling by introducing her/himself to
the content of the issue in charge (DeTombe, 1996). The facilitator starts the
process by orienting him or herself on the problem by reading, discussing and
thinking on the issue of climate change and by interviewing people who have
special knowledge on the different elements of the climate issue. At the start of the process,
it may not be clear which fields, phenomena, actors and groups are involved. In
that case, the facilitator undertakes in-depth interviews with the experts and
actors that are known, in order to gain more information about the elements,
that ought to be involved. In the
case of climate change, this can be experts with knowledge of energy industry
and alternative energy sources, of water affairs, of agriculture, of flood
protection, of bio gases, of sea level changes and ocean currents, and of
political affairs. Milieu en Natuur
Planbureau[24]
(MNP, 2007) indicates that

‘the climate issue is not a
stand alone issue. The only chance to save biodiversity and to mitigate the
climate change is a multidiscipline integrated international cooperative
approach of the poverty and development issue, the space and biodiversity issue
and the energy and climate issue (page vii- xxv).’

After this orientation the
facilitator writes a report ‘Introduction to the problem of climate change’ and
indicates in the report which knowledge fields are involved in this issue and
which experts of which field should be invited for the problem-handling process.
The process of
cooperative problem-handling begins by selecting by the facilitator, in
cooperation with the problem owner, a team of ‘neutral’ experts of the fields
mentioned in the report. The selection of the experts depends on the major
fields, phenomena, actors and other groups, that are involved in the problem.

The experts must agree on the way the
problem-handling process is guided. Therefore, the method has to have
credibility (DeTombe, 2000b). Before starting the problem-handling process the
experts should be introduced to the way the problem will be guided.

Experts from the different
knowledge fields are invited by the facilitator to join the problem-handling
process. To make the discussion possible the number of experts in the
problem-handling group is from twelve to fifteen persons. Each expert has
knowledge on a part of the problem. Their view on the problem is coloured by
their own field (see Figure 6). In several rounds of discussion, experts give
lectures to each other, and are invited by the facilitator to find more
information about their field on the subject of climate change (DeTombe, 1994,
chapter 8).

The reason to invite the
experts to discuss the problem together is that each expert can explain his/herknowledge part to the other experts. In this way every expert can interpret
the new information directly into their own knowledge about the subject. In this
way a food expert can explain to an economist, what can happen to the world
sources of grains because of climate change. In return the economist can
explain, what happens with the prices of food due to this change, then the
expert of politics can explain, how this might effect the world stability, and
the psychologist, what the effect will be on people. Each expert is supported by
a support group of persons from her/his own field, in which he/she can discuss
the issues discussed in the problem-handling group.

6.2 Why invite experts
instead of actors

One could wonder why not
start the problem-handling process directly with the actors instead of starting
with the experts? The reason for this is, that experts are supposed to be
neutral towards a certain kind of ‘solution’ to the problem, while actors have a
direct interest in a kind of definition of the problem and interest in a
specific kind of solution. When actors are directly invited, there is a
reasonable chance, that the problem will be defined towards the direction of the
desired goal of the most powerful actor, ignoring the demands and wishes of the
less powerful groups.

6.3 The
role of the facilitator

The facilitator is
responsible for the entire problem-handling process from step one in theCompram methodology till step six, or sooner if the problem owner decides
to stop the problem-handling process. The facilitator, as a representative of
the problem owner, should make it clear to the people in the problem-handling
process, what the goal of the problem owner is. When the problem owner is a
world wide organisation on climate change, the goal of the problem owner can be
something like: ‘What is happening with the climate?’ or even further ‘How can
we put a halt to fast climate change?’. The facilitator is neutral towards a
certain solution. For instance, the facilitator is not allowed to steer the
discussion to a certain technological solution that the firm X offers for this
problem. The facilitator should not benefit certain actors over others.

The qualities of the
facilitator are of utmost importance for the success of the problem-handling
process. Has the facilitator used the optimal tools to smoothen the knowledge
exchange? Can he/she handle the emotional processes in the problem-handling
process? Can the facilitator see to it that no information stays behind, that
hidden agendas are avoided and power games not played? This demands many
qualities of a facilitator, who has to have knowledge on methods and tools to
facilitate the knowledge exchanges as well as qualities to handle the problem
handle process functionally and emotionally. Special skills are needed in the
problem-handling process by using a special support tool such as simulation
models. The facilitator can invite outside experts to the problem-handling
process in making this model or by explaining existing models. In this way, the
problem-handling process stays open for support on special skills the
facilitator lacks in the process.

6.4 Step 1.2 of the Compram
methodology and phase1.4 of the problem-handling process: each expert gives
her/his point of view on the climate issue

By combining the knowledge
of all the experts, created by exchanging knowledge with each other, the experts
come to a better insight in the problem. The experts discuss the problem with
each other during six to twelve meetings, often preparing each meeting by
finding new information supported by discussions with their support group
(DeTombe, 1994, chapter 8)[26].

The task
of the facilitator is to make it possible for all the experts to understand each
other by supporting the problem-handling process with a knowledge exchange and
communication tool. This is done with the seven-layer model (see Figure 7)
(DeTombe, 1994). The seven-layer model is the central communication tool of the
Compram method. The seven-layer model is a model of knowledge exchange and meant
to support communication. The seven-layer communication tool is especially
developed to ease the communication of a multi-disciplined team of problem
handlers. The knowledge can be expressed in different ways in a seven-layer
model to maximize mutual understanding and communication about the problem.
The expert team expresses their definition of the problem using this seven-layer
model guided by the facilitator.

In the seven-layer model the
problem can be expressed in different ways, using different models and different
languages. In this way, the multi disciplinary problem-handling team can
understand each other, meanwhile use their own familiar way of expressing the
problem. Expressing the problem in different ways and in different languages
makes it easier to see what is missing. It helps to adjust the models and to
make clear how phenomena are related.

Natural language is the start of defining the phenomena and concepts, and of
making a semantic model. The semantic model, in turn, makes it easier to adjust
the description of the problem. The seven-layer model is also created to avoid
some of the often occurring pitfalls, such as verbalism and collective blind
spots.

Figure 7: The seven-layer communication model

In Layer I the problem is described in a natural language, in words, each team
member understands.

In Layer II the concepts and the phenomena used in the description of the
problem in Layer I are defined. In this way the team members are stimulated to
operationalize and define the concepts and phenomena they use. This gives other
team members the opportunity to learn the concepts of other professions, and its
prevents verbalism[27].

In Layer III the relations between the concepts and the phenomena of the problem
are described in natural language. These relations can be based on theories,
hypotheses, assumptions, experiences or intuition. This indicates the status of
the knowledge. This Layer is related to the description of the problem in Layer
I, to the definition of the concepts and the phenomena in Layer I and to Layers
IV, V, VI, and VII.

Layer IV shows the knowledge islands. This is a graphic representation of the
knowledge of the problem that is needed for handling the problem. The way the
knowledge islands are filled indicates the completeness of the knowledge.

In Layer V a semantic model of the problem is made. A semantic model is a
graphic representation of the relations between the concepts and the phenomena
of the problem described in Layer I.

In Layer VI a graphic representation of the causal relations between the
concepts and the phenomena of the problem is shown.

Layer VII contains a system dynamic model of the problem based on the causal
model in Layer VI. The system dynamic model contains non-linear connections
because of the repetitive interactions between the phenomena and the actors in
the model.

Parts of the problem and of the different domain knowledge can be worked out in
more detail in sub-sheets of the Layers I to VII. The sub-sheets of one domain
are internally connected and are externally connected to the overall problem. It
is often necessary to focus on a part of the problem in detail to get a better
view, otherwise the models are too large to comprehend. The seven-layer model
can be used to support the first sub-cycle of the problem-handling process as
well as the second sub-cycle (see DeTombe, 1994) (see Figure 3).

7 Step
1.3 of the Compram methodology and phase 1.5 of the
problem-handling process: data gathering, exchanging knowledge and forming
hypotheses: by the experts

In the phase 1.5 of the
problem-handling process the experts, stimulated by the facilitator, elaborate
the description of the problem by data gathering and data mining, guided by the
hypotheses they have formulated together and each one in his/her own field, on
the relation between the phenomena on the subject of climate change. At several
moments in the problem-handling process outside experts are invited to reflect
on the discussion and the models. These experts have the role of the devil´s
advocate.

8 Step 1.4 of the
Comprammethodology and phase 1.6of the problem handing process: formulating the conceptual model of the
problem, defining the problem by the experts

Phase 1.6 of the problem handing process is formulating the conceptual model of
the problem. The rounds of discussion of the experts, guided by the facilitator,
finish after an iterative process of filling the seven-layer
model until the experts have the idea that they know relatively enough on the
issue in charge[28].
With filling the seven-layer
model the experts have made the conceptual model of the problem, and with this,
defined the problem. With the
description of the problem, in all Layers of the seven-layer model, the problem
is defined. In
formulating the conceptual model of the problem, all relevant aspects
of the problem are described: from the development of the problem in the past,
to the contemporary situation of the problem, till the possible development of
the problem in the future, given that there is no (successful) intervention.
Included in the definition of the problem is an overview of the actors involved,
including which actors will benefit and which will suffer from the climate
change.

The concluding report of the
definition of the problem will be made. In this report is described: the problem
owner, the problem-handling process, the tasks and activities of the facilitator
and a summary of the reports of each problem-handling phase including the
discussions and the decisions of each problem-handling round. Before the
definition of the problem is described in an extended report, an outside expert
will be invited to reflect on the definition and her-his remarks will be taken
into account.

The outcome of the
discussion in the first part of the problem-handling process, phase 1.1 to phase
1.6, the definition of the problem, is not absolute. In discussing a complex
societal issue items are missed, overseen and not known (DeTombe,1992). The
quality of the problem-handling process is dependent of the quality of the
facilitator, and the selected members of the problem-handling teams, the experts
and actors (DeTombe, 1999).

The quality of the
problem-handling process depends also on the quality of the group of experts.
Are adequate experts invited? At the start of the problem-handling process there
is a moment of contemplation to reflect, whether the right experts are invited.
There is a possibility to replace experts or to invite other experts. Selecting
high quality experts and finding them available and willing to support the
problem-handling process demands many special skills of the facilitator.

The quality of theproblem-handling process depends also on the power and qualities of the
actors. Are the right actors included in the problem-handling process and are
important actors not overseen?

When the problem is vague
and very complicated, and given thatthe outcome of the problem-handling process is relative, it could be
valuable to have an other problem-handling team, supported by an other
facilitator, to handle the same issue at the same time. After the definition of
the problem the conceptual models of the two problem-handling teams can be
compared and then discussed by the problem-handling groups on similarities and
differences.

9Step 1.5 of
the Compram methodology and phase 2.1 of the problem-handling process:
constructing the empirical model of the problem and establishing the desired
goal

Now that the problem is defined, the
problem can be changed. Phase 2.1 is the first phase of changing the problem
(see Figure 2). We
use the term changing a problem instead of solving a problem, because a solution
depends on which party you are. A solution for one party can be the start of a
problem for another party.

After the iterative process
of defining the problem, the experts will, with the support of the facilitator
and external experts, fill the seven-layer model with empirical data, thus
making an empirical model of the problem[29].
In this phase of the handling process the facilitator asks the experts, to
consult the data specialists in their field to fill the conceptual model with
real life data. The experts discuss together the outcome of the empirical model.
The empirical model should be as near to reality as possible. Often it is much
too difficult for the experts to make the empirical model, so specialists are
invited to make the empirical model together with the experts including all the
phenomena of the conceptual model. In case of using existing models, it is
crucial that these empirical detailed models are completely understood by the
experts and that all the phenomena of the conceptual model are included. In the
case of climate change, there are existing world models, however often these
models lack the societal aspects (Utsumi, 2008).

In the second part of phase
2.1 the experts are asked to reflect on the desired goal[30].
Towards which goal and into what direction should the problem be changed?Which goals seems reasonable to be reached in the near by period, which
goals seem reasonable to be reached in the long run? At the end of this phase
the experts are invited to formulate the difference between the contemporary
situation and the desired situation. The experts will formulate into which
direction the situation should be changed, and which are the obstacles to
overcome. The facilitator makes a report of this phase as is done in all the
other phases and steps. It is not necessary to have a consensus among the
members of the problem-handling group. It is possible to maintain a minority
point of view, if well argued.

10 Step
1.6 of the Compram methodology and phase 2.2 of the problem-handling process:exploring the handling space by experts

After constructing the
empirical model, the next step in the problem-handling process is to define the
handling space. The
handling space is a special point of attention in the Compram methodology.
Defining the handling space enables one
to define how much and what can be changed in order to reach, or to approach,
the desired situation (DeTombe, 1994).

The handling space is a
metaphor; a mental construct. It is the space where interventions of the problem
will be searched, that might lead towards the desired situation[31].
The handling space limits the space in which, and to what extent, the problem
can be changed. The handling space is a different concept from the term 'problem
space' of Newell & Simon (1972)[32].
The handling space as such is indifferent to whether the change will actually
lead to the desired situation. One can only think that it will. The handling
space can be described in terms of
levels and kinds of constraints.

10.1Four levels of handling space

In changing complex
interdisciplinary societal problems one has to takemany constraints into account.These constraints narrow the handling space. To be able to indicate the
different ranges of possibilities for changing the problem, we distinguish
different levels handling space.

The first level of handling
space is the most restrictive level: the fourth level allows the most freedom
from the existing situations.

At the first level of
handling space the interventions of the problem will be searched for within the
current situation. At this most restricted level the whole situation remains in
principle as it is with only relatively small changes within the existing
situation. This idea comes close to what is colloquially called 'muddling
through'. At societal level this includes new laws, a better infrastructure, and
changes in pensions for the elderly.

The second level of handling
space allows more changes in the contemporary situation, although not too many,
but the changes can be larger. There is more space to handle the problem andthere are more possibilities for change.

The third level of handling
space broadens the possibilities as wide as can be, but still within the
'normal' possibilities of mankind and nature. On the societal level this
involves fundamental changes in organizations, in politics and even in the way
people think, hope and believe. This can constitute a totally new form of
society[33].

The fourth level of handling
space abandons the constraints of human possibilities and escapes into
imagination. It is a level that can no longer be fruitfully implemented, but the
most can be used to 'unfreeze'[34]
people in the problem-handling process.The distinction between level one, two and three is gradual. From changes
within the existing situation (level one) to major changes of the situation
(level two) to a whole new approach of living (level three). The distinction
between the first three levels and the fourth level, however, is qualitative.
Here, the levels of constraint pass from realistic (level one to three) to
unrealistic (level four).

In practice many problems
are handled within the first level of handling space; the present situation,
where only slight changes are allowed. The interventions will, in principle, not
fundamentally change the situation. Sometimes an intervention cannot be found at
the first or second level, in which case one should raise the level of handling
space. When the level of handling space is too restricted, it will not be
possible to find a satisfactory change. Than in order to reach the desired
situation, the range of possibilities should be enlarged. Special effort has to
be taken to unfreeze people in order to stimulate thinking about new ideas and
different possibilities.

10.2Kinds of constraints

Besides levels of handling
space, there are different kinds of constraints: financial constraints,
political constraints, psychological constraints, geographical constraints,
physical constraints, time constraints and so forth. Each of these constraints
can be located at the different levels. Examples are:

Financial constraints: some
interventions are too expensive to be implemented. Organizational constraints:
some interventions cannot be organized given the situation. Political
constraints: some interventions cannot be carried out because it is politically
not possible at that moment. Time constraints: a change of the problem has to be
found within three months[35].

It is very important to realize the time, money, scale and power limitations of
the problem-handling process, given this particular problem owner and this
specific period. Often the power of the problem owner is too limited to really
be able to change something. At this moment of the problem-handling process, the
experts have to discuss whether the problem owner has enough power to change a
relevant part of the problem together with the actors or whether the problem
should be given back to the problem owner and be put on another problem owners
agenda, who can handle the issue on another level of the handling space. When
the problem is given back, the experts, together with the facilitator, make a
report in which the whole problem-handling process is described, including the
reasons to put this on another problem owner´s agenda, with suggestions how this
could be done. Then the problem-handling process restarts with phase 1.4 of the
problem-handling process and step 1.7 of the Compram methodology under super
vision of an other problem owner.

If the problem owner has enough power and adequate means to handle the issue,
the problem-handling process can continue. Most problems are handled in the
‘here and now’ situation; this means within the first handling space.

11 Step 1.7
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.3 of the problem-handling process:
constructing and evaluating scenarios by experts

In this phase of the problem-handling process the experts are constructing and
evaluating scenarios. Depending on the time schedule of the problem-handling
process three or more scenarios can be evaluated.

In scenarios experts discuss with each other, guided by the facilitator, what
might happen in the future. A scenario question could be: ‘What happens when the
contemporary situation continues in the same speed of changes as the last five
years?’, ‘What happens when the contemporary situation is increasing faster?’,
‘What happens when the contemporary situation improves?’, or scenario questions
like: ‘What happens if climate stays the same at the level of last year’, or‘What happens when the climate temperature rises 1 degree Celsius over
normal?’, or ‘What happens when the climate temperature rises 2 degrees Celsius
over normal?’. Having selected some scenarios and evaluated these scenarios a
report of the
problem-handling process in
this phase is made. Again experts from outside are invited to reflect on the
scenarios and re-evaluate them. Are the rightand relevant scenarios selected? Are the right conclusions drawn?

12 Step 1.8
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the problem-handling process:suggesting interventions by
experts

The experts,
guided by the facilitator, discuss interventions which could lead to a change of
the problem towards the desired goal. Needed and likely interventions can be
discussed. The needed interventions will lead to the desired goal and the likely
interventions include an estimation of the real life situation and the powers
and desires of the actors. Discussed will be which actor will support the needed
changes and which actor will obstruct. To give an example. A possible intervention to
mitigate the climate change could bea
diminishing of the CO2 output in the atmosphere. This can be done by
looking atalternatives for sources
of energy, such as nuclear power energy, wind
energy (Pruyt, 2007),solar powerand hydro power.
These suggestions are on the first level of the
handling space.The discussion of the experts
might stop here by giving directions on the first level of handling space for
more sustainable energy. It is also possible to start a discussion about the
idea of sustainable development as such, including changing views on quality of
life by, for instance, changing the definitions of economy, in which economy is
not only based on money assets, but includes also cultural capital, social
capital, economic capital, symbolic capital and sustainable capital
(Bourdieu, 1992; DeTombe, 2004, 2008). This demands level two of the handling
space. Level two of the handling space takes more time to be accepted by the
policy makers and by the people, and more time to be implemented. It takes more
time to reach this and it is more difficult to reach it.

At this point
in the problem-handling process the facilitator writes a report about the whole
problem-handling process. In this document is reported the description of the
problem, the contemporary situation of the issue, several scenarios and
suggestions for interventions, including the assumed cooperation and obstruction
of the actors. This is all written from the point of view of the selected
experts.

13 Step 2.1 of the Compram
methodology and phase 1.4 of the problem-handling process: inviting
the actors

The experts can only advise.
The advise given in the report made at the end of phase 2.4. The experts do nothave the power to implement their suggestions. The problem owner has no
power neither to implement the suggestions either, nor does a single actor have
the power to make these changes if wanted. The problem owner and all the actors
together are needed to make fruitful changes. Therefore, the actors have to be
invited in the problem-handling process. The climate issue has to be reflected
by the actors. The actors have the power to realize change, or to prevent
changes.

Actors have, in contradiction to the
experts, a direct interest in the goals and outcomes of the problem-handling
process. The problem affects them directly. Two kinds of actors can be
distinguished: well-organized groups and less or unorganized groups. Both groups
could be affected by the problem-handling process. The well-organized actors
coordinate their interests and try to influence theproblem-handling process
often actively. Less and unorganized groups, like the people in rural areas,
single mothers, children, are affected by the problem and thus have an interest
in the outcome of the problem, but they do not have a particular defender of
their interests. In theory, policy makers should take care of the interests of
both groups, the well-organized and the less-organized groups, however, in
practice, it is exceptional that the interests of the unorganized groups are
taken just as seriously as those of the well-organized groups.

The actors, involved in the
problem-handling process, have each their own view on the problem, their own
definition of the problem and their own goals. Often the well-organized actors
have hidden agendas.

In the Compram methodology, both, the
actors and the unorganized groups, are invited to join the problem-handling
process at an early stage in the problem-handling process
(DeTombe, 2000a). The actors must agree on the way the problem-handling process
is guided, so before starting the problem-handling process the actors should be
introduced to the way the problem will be guided.

Action groups
should also be invited the
problem-handling process.
In general action groups have much knowledge about the issue. They often have
certain powers to prevent or stimulate certain interventions. Inviting action
groups at an early stage in the problem-handling process prevents obstruction by
these groups later on in the problem-handling process.

The relevant
actors are indicated by the experts in the conceptual model of the problem;
sometimes additional actors are noticed during the further discussions of the
problem-handling process. The main influential and affected actors are selected.
Powerful actors are affected by the issue, but they are not the only ones. Other
groups are affected as well, and may be even more; groups which are not powerful
and not well represented. Less powerful groups like, for instance, groups in
developing countries, like people in Bangladesh, are not well represented in
most kind of problem-handling processes. It is the task of the facilitator in
the Compram methodology to seek representatives of these powerless and/or not
well organized groups, and to invitethem join the problem-handling process.

Each actor is
approached by the facilitator and invited to the problem-handling process. The
actor is invited to come with a group of their people. The facilitator guides
each group of actors separately through the problem-handling phase 1.4 to 2.4 in the same way the
facilitator guided the experts. The actors are introduced in the
problem-handling process by the material send by the facilitator ‘Introduction
to the problem of the climate change’ (see paragraph 6.1). This material
represents phase 1.1 and phase 1.2 of the problem-handling process. In agreeing
to join as an actor in this
problem-handling process,
the actor puts the issue of climate change on its own political agenda, which is
phase 1.3 of the problem-handling process. The actor group forms a team of its
own, and discuss the climate issue in the next phases, the phase 1.4 to 2.4 of
the problem-handling
process, with their own group guided by
the facilitator.

13.1 Step 2.2 of the Compram
methodology and phase 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the problem-handling process:
formulating the problem by the actors

There will be
around eight to twelve actor groups invited. Each group of actors will
separately fill in the seven-layer
model during several rounds of discussion on the problem of climate change by
exchanging knowledge, formulating hypotheses and data gathering supported in the
same way as the experts by the facilitator. This are the phases 1.4 and 1.5 of
the problem-handling process. In phase 1.6 the actors discuss their definition
of the problem, described in the seven-layer model in the same way as the
experts (see Figure 7). At this moment in the problem-handling process
it becomes clear how this actor group sees the problem.

13.2 Step 2.3 of the Compram
methodology and phase 2.1 of the problem-handling process: filling the empirical
model and formulated the desired goal by the actors

In phase 2.1
of the problem-handling process each actor group fills the conceptual model with
empirical data. This process can be supported by simulation specialists. In
these phase the actors are also invited to formulate their desired goal. This
makes it clear into which direction this actor wants the problem to be changed.

13.3 Step 2.4 of the Compram
methodology and phase 2.2 of the problem-handling process: discussing the
handling space by the actors

In phase 2.2
the actor gives his or her opinion on which level of handling space the problem
should be handled, and discuss the constrains. Each actor group decides what
their limits in time, money and people are.

13.4 Step 2.5 of the Compram
methodology and phase 2.3 of the problem-handling process: discussing scenarios
by the actors

In this phase
the actors, guided by the facilitator, discuss some possible scenarios.

13.5 Step 2.6 of the Compram
methodology and phase 2.4 of the problem-handling process: discussing
interventions by actors

Based on a
comparison between the contemporary situation and their desired goal, each actor
group gives suggestions for interventions. These suggestions can be actions for
themselves or suggestions for other actors, such as diminishing CO2
emission, or make some technical devices, for instance, for building hydro power
plants. Often the government is asked to support the actor by subsidizing or by
decreasing tax.

This is the
last part of step 2
of the Compram methodology. Now the facilitator makes
a report of each actor group with its consent, and describes their results of
the problem-handling process and evaluate the problem-handling process.

The
facilitator performs these problem-handling processes separately for each actor
group. At the end of step two of the Compram methodology the facilitator has the
view of all the relevant actors in the problem-handling process on the issue of
climate change.

14Step 3 of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the
problem-handling process: the experts and actors
together: the power game

14.1 Step 3.1
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the
problem-handling process: comparing the points of
view between the actors and between the actors and the experts by the experts

Now that the
facilitator has an overview of the way the experts and the relevant actors
reflect the issue, the facilitator makes a report of the similarities and the
differences between the view of the actors and a comparison between the actors
and that of the experts towards the issue of climate change. This can be done by
comparing the final reports of all groups. Each group has used the same way of
defining the problem by using the seven-layer
model (see Figure 7), and each group has described the desired goals, the
handling space, the scenarios and interventions. This makes it easier to compare
the results. The facilitator compares all these issues and write an overview
report. This overview report contains the original reports of the experts and
that of the actors, as well as the comparison between the actors and that
between the actors and the experts. The report will be send to the experts.

After studying
this report the experts are invited to discuss, guided by the facilitator, the
report with each other. Together the experts try to combine the different points
of view and combine the different views on the phenomena expressed in the
seven-layer model, clearly marking the contradictions and similarities between
the models of the different groups. This is described in the report called ‘The
report of comparison of the point of view of the experts and actors towards the
issue of climate change’.

14.2 Step 3.2
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the
problem-handling process: inform each group about the
points of view of others

The
facilitator invites each actor group separately for an explanation of the report
‘The report of comparison of point of view of the experts and actors towards the
issue of climate change’ and explains this report. Then the actors are, guided
by the facilitator, invited to reflect again their own points of view. This may
result in some or no changes. Then each actor group is asked to select a
representative of their group to represent them in the negotiation meetings.

14.3 Step 3.3
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the
problem-handling process: make a power overview by
the experts

Based on the
original reports of the actors and their formulated points of view, the experts
make a power map of the power of the different actors, including as far as this
is possible, their hidden agendas. In a power game, it often happens, that the
actors are not completely, or not at all, open in their point of view towards
the issue. They have hidden goals and hidden agendas. It is up to the experts
and facilitator to estimate, what is openly said, and what is hided.

Then the
steering instruments of the problem owner are discussed. The steering
instruments are instruments, that can be used to stimulate or prevent changes.
The steering instruments of, for instance, a government can be incentives, like
paying less tax or can be punishments, like paying fines or go to prison. At
this moment in the
problem-handling process the experts can see, whether
their desired goals are still valued. Should the original goal still be the
desired goal or should the original goal, be changed, now that there is a better
view of the problem given? How can the desired goals be reached. If the desired
goals cannot be reached, the experts should discuss whether the desired goals
can be adapted.

14.4 Step 3.4
of the Compram methodology and phase 2.4 of the
problem-handling process: the negotiations by the
experts and the actors

The
representatives of each actor group and the representative of the experts are
invited by the facilitator to continue the problem-handling process and to start
the negotiations. These sessions start with, again, explaining the points of
view, now by each representative of a group to the other problem handlers.

The task of
the facilitator is to get the points of view on the problem, the problem
definition, nearer to each other. By doing this, all kinds of methods are used,
like lecturing, discussing, explanation and by using, for instance, the Group
Discussion Room[36]
(GDR) (DeTombe, 1995). Can the points of view grow nearer to each other? Then
the desired goals are discussed. How much similarities and differences are there
regarding the desired goals. Can these points of views come nearer to each
other? Then the similarities and differences of the handling spaces are
discussed. Can these points come nearer? After this the scenarios are discussed
on similarities and differences. Then each participant of the problem-handling
group is invited to explain their suggested interventions. This discussion is
followed by discussing the steering instruments.

Then the
negotiations can start. The idea is, that after some rounds of negotiations, the
parties come to an agreement on certain kinds of interventions. This does not
have to be based on a consensus. There are also other means to get groups to
agree on some measurements. The actors which disagree with the interventions
suggested by the majority, can get some incentives or punishments, which
stimulate or force these actors to confirm to other points of view. This process
of negotiation can take several months and may end in a impasse or in mutual
accepted interventions. As in the other phases and steps, a report is made of
this part of the problem-handling process by the facilitator.

15
Step 4 of the Compram methodology:
anticipation on the political reactions by political experts and anticipation on
societal reactions by ‘the people’

It is
important before implementing the interventions to find out what the political
reactions are of the rest of the world. Societal reactions are the reactions of
the people and of, for instance, the media. The interventions will have effect
on many people. Agreeing with a relatively small group of negotiators is
different from getting an agreement of the rest of the world. Some interventions
might not be excepted by some groups. These groups, for instance, not consulted
action groups, can become very nasty, and can even prevent interventions to be
performed. Therefore, before implementing the interventions, it is necessary to
find out what the societal reactions are of the rest of the world. Thus, after
the problem handlers agree to certain kinds of changes toward the issue, ateam of political experts with expertise on micro, meso, and macro
policy, will be invited to give an overview on the expected societal and
political reactions. Political reactions are the reactions on other political
levels or on other political areas than that of the problem owner. The political
experts make a report in which they estimate the changes of obstruction and
cooperation of the rest of the world to the interventions agreed upon in step 3.
This report of the estimated societal reactions will be discussed by the
representatives of the experts and actors, and some interventions might be
adjusted due to this report.

Then the
interventions will be announced in the relevant media and at the relevant
organisations. This will provoke societal reactions of scientists, media and of
other actor groups. The societal reactions will be evaluated. Then the
representatives of the experts and actors will discuss the societal reactions.
This might again lead to some adjustments.

At the end of
this step the facilitator supported by communication experts, makes a report on
societal reactions on the issue of climate change.

This report
will be discussed in the problem handing team of step 3, the representatives of
experts and actors together. Then based on the outcome of the discussion the
interventions will be the confirmed or changed. Then interventions and
measurements to be taken will be described, including a time scale of
implementation and including the role of implementers and that of the
controllers. As in the other phases and steps, a report is made of this part of
the problem-handling process by the facilitator.

16 Step 5 of the Compram
methodology
and phase 2.5 of the problem-handling process:implementation of the interventions

In this step
the suggested interventions are implemented by the implementation group. The
implementation group consists of representatives of the expert group and the
actors groups. The implementation will follow a time schedule indicating how and
when the operationalized interventions are implemented. Sometimes it takes a
long time to make people act on interventions they already agreed upon. For
instance, the agreement of the Kyoto protocol is not yet, even after many years,
ratified by some of the major players in the world (the USA and India). These
implementation will be controlled and evaluated by the controlle group. These
control processes must be open to the public, to the media and to international
recognized control organizations.

17 Step 6 of the Compram
methodology and phase
2.6 of the problem-handling process:evaluation of changes of the problem of climate change and evaluating the
problem-handling process by the team of experts and actors

Directly after the steps 1 to 5 the
facilitator will evaluate the problem-handling process in the way of a process
of decision making. What went well, what went wrong in the problem-handling
process and what was positive, what was negative. He/she reports this to the
problem owner and this report will be used to improve the next problem-handling
process on complex societal problems. Then will be evaluated, which actions are
undertaken to implement the interventions, and what is the effect of the
interventions on the desired goals.

After a few years the
interventions will be evaluated by the facilitator
together with her/his team of experts and actors. Are the interventions
implemented? Are the desired goals reached? With regard to the climate issue,
for instance: ‘Has every country ratified protocol discussed to made in Bali
2007?’

An outcome of the evaluation
of the problem-handling process could be that interventions at the first level
of handling space is not enough to reach the desired goals, and that, in order
to really reach a more sustainable climate, interventions should be taken on the
second level of the handling space. It could be that, for instance, an other
view on economy, or welfare and happiness, could cause a mental shift, that
makes it possible to get the necessary handling space for the interventions.

Mostly with these kind of
complex societal problems, the problem changes after a few years. Also the
states, people, knowledge of technology, power and emotions towards this issue
is changed. Then it is time to consider, whether this line of intervention
should be continued or should be changed. Is it necessary to start te
problem-handling process again to redefine the issue of climate change?

18 Summary

This article
is described how the Compram methodology can be applied to a complex societal
problem. Here it was is argued, that climate change is a complex societal
problem, which should be handled according to the Compram methodology. In this
article the coherence and the necessary sequence of the phases in the
problem-handling process and the steps in the Compram methodology are explained.

The Compram
methodology is a way of thinking and a way of decision making. This intensive
way of thinking leads to better and more sustainable interventions of the
problem than the usual used political policy making. By following each phase of
the problem-handling process and by performing each step of the Compram
methodology carefully, one reaches more sustainable interventions on complex
societal problems. The Compram methodology is created to prevent shallow
solutions which can do more harm than good. Using the Compram way of handling
helps to getmore sustainable and
more acceptable interventions.

Easy and fast
solutions for these kind of complex societal problems are not possible. Often
policy makers like to jump to conclusions, quickly find some interventions, and
start implementing directly. Mostly these kind of problems are handled without
taking all the phenomena into account. This way one does not see the whole
problem and gets ‘solutions’ that only handle the effects of the problem and not
the causes, or sometimes are even contra productive.

The Compram
methodology is a framework methodology, which means, that all kinds of existing
methods are included. In order to guide the process, the facilitator uses many
existing tools and methods to create the knowledge on the issue. For the tools
and methods the facilitator is not familiar with, other supporting facilitators
can be invited.

The Compram methodology is
based on interdisciplinary scientifically research. It advocates a multi
disciplinary way of handling a complex societal problem. By carefully describing
and reporting after each problem-handling phase and step, the whole process
becomes transparent, which makes it easy to learn from and easy to see where
improvements can be made. See for more information
about the Compram methodology DeTombe, www.geocities.com/doriendetombe

References:

Arrhenius, S. (1896) On the Influence
of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground Philosophical
Magazine 41, 237-276

Brundtland, G.H. (1988) Our Common
Future: a Climate for Change. Proceedings of the world Conference on the
Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security, 27-30 June (WMO.no. 710
1989).

Davos (2007)
Second International Conference on
Climate Change and Tourism in Davos, Switzerland (1-3 October 2007). The
meeting is organized by UNWTO together with the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and supported by
the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Swiss Government.

IPCC (2007a)
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of the Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

IPCC (2007b)
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

IPCC (2007c)
Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of the Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

Rio Declaration on
Environment and
Development
...(1992)The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992, Reaffirming the
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted
at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, and seeking to build upon it.

Dorien J. DeTombe is the
founding father of the field
Methodology for Societal Complexity. She is an international recognized
expert in the field of handling Complex Societal Problems and issues. She
developed the methodology COMPRAM (Complex Problem hAndling Methodology), a
multi disciplined methodology for political decision making. Dorien J. DeTombe
studied social science and computer science. She received her doctorate in the
field of methodology for Complex Societal Problems. She published many articles
and books on the subject of Methodology of Complex Societal Problems. Contact:
Dr Dorien DeTombe (MSc.
Ph.D.) Chair
International Society on Methodology
for Societal Complexity, P.O. Box. 3286, 1001 AB Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, Europe Tel: +31 20 6927526 Email: deTombe@nosmo.nl
http://www.geocities.com/doriendetombe

[1]
The Compram methodology is advised by the OECD
(July 2006) to handle complex societal issues.
The ‘Final consensus report’ is published in
the

[2]
The
Kyoto-Protocol
by the United Nations (Kyoto,
1997a, 1997b, 1997c) is constructed in 1997 to
diminish the greenhouse gas
emissions.
In 2005 the protocol was ratified by the
European Union. In 2006 165 countries have ratified
the agreement. Until now the USA and India did
not ratified
the contract. In Bali 2007 the politicians came
to an agreement to make a new protocol at the
moment the Kyoto protocol will end. This new
protocol will include all countries of the
world.

[3]
“On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific
panel studying climate change (IPCC) declared
that the evidence of a warming trend is
"unequivocal,” and that human activity
(antropogenic) has "very likely" been the
driving force in that change over the last 50
years. The last report by the group, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), in 2001, had found that humanity had
"likely" played a role.” New York Times February
2, 2007.

[4]
The theory of societal complexity and the
Compram methodology is developed by DeTombe
(1994, 2001, 2003). The Compram methodology is a
methodology to analyze, structure, guide and
evaluate complex societal problems based on the
theory of societal complexity.

[5]
In this discussion we do not make a distinction
between party, actor, stakeholder, interest
group, or organized group. In this article all
these concepts refer to groups who have a
certain, positive or negative, interest in the
issue discussed.

[7]
See highly qualified daily new papers during the
years 2000-2007: in Europe the Frankfurter
Algemeine in Germany, the NRC in The
Netherlands, Le Monde in France; in North
America the New York Times in the USA.

[9]
The mean temperature on the earth has varied in
the last 500 million years between a mean of 12
degrees Celsius in the Ordovician and 12 degrees
Celsius in the Silurian period. Now-a-days the
mean temperature of the earth is 15 degrees
Celsius (Otten, 2005).

[10]
This cold period is pictured in the many ice and
skating paintings ofthe ´Golden Age´ in The Netherlands. See
for instance, the work of Avercamp (Avercamp,
1630-1634, 1608; Groot, 2005).

[11]Since the
beginning of last century, the world temperature
has risen an average of 0,74 degrees Celsius.In The Netherlands the temperature
increased 1.6 degrees Celsius in this period
(Milieu en Natuur Planbureau, 2007a, p. 52). The
climate panel (IPCC, 2000) predicted that the
global climate is likely to rise between 3.5 and
8 degrees Fahrenheit when the carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere reaches twice
the level of 1750. However, one should realize
that the temperatures are only measured from
1876 on. Compared to the existence of the earth
of 4.5 billiard years this period is very short.

[12]
However, also for these phenomena counts, that
the registration of the weather are very recent.

[16]
Western Europe, USA and Canada.The developing countries used less energy
per person in the same period.

[17]
The amount of deserts is increasing, while the
amount of cultural land is decreasing. So less
rice, grain and corn can be harvested for human
and animal consumption. Also the amount of
swamps seem to be increasing causing more
malaria.

[18]
The Kyoto
protocol only incorporated 25 % of the countries
of the world (Kyoto 1997a, b, c).

[19]
The
legitimate problem owner is the person or the
institute that has the authority to handle the
problem. This means that the problem owner can
start the problem-handling process and that
there is a reasonable chance that the other
participants, experts and actors, are prepared
to cooperate in this process. When acceptable
interventions are found, later on in the
problem-handling process, there is a reasonable
chance that these interventions will be
implemented.

[20]
There are limits to the knowledge about a
complex problem due to lack of time, money, and
the state of the art of the knowledge on the
issue. A limitation on knowledge is called a
white spot. A white spot means that one knows
that one should know more about these phenomena,
however the knowledge on this item is not
available and time or possibilities are missing.

An other limitation on knowledge is called a
blind spot. Blind spots are knowledge issues
that everyone oversees, and just does not
realize that this is missed. However if
realized, the knowledge about the issue would be
available. To avoid blind spots a outsider, like
a general expert, is several times invited, to
the problem-handling process to discuss the
models with the participants and to ask all
kinds questions on the relation between the
phenomena and on the involved phenomena. This
general expert gets the role of the devils
advocate. This is also done to avoid group think
(DeTombe, 1994).

[21]
By inviting actors directly into the
problem-handling process, the chances are there
that the most powerful actors formulate the
definition of the problem toward their own
definition of the problem and their own goals.
Therefore,
the Compram methodology starts with
‘neutral’ experts, instead of with actors. The
experts are neutral towards the definition and
the goal of the problem-handling process.

[22]
The Compram methodology neutralizes, where
needed, the personal or domain dominance of a
person in the problem-handling team, for
instance, by giving the team members the
opportunity to brainstorm anonymously for
instance in the Group Decision Room (GDR)
(DeTombe, 1997) .

[23]
For more information about complex societal
problems and the Compram methodology see:
http://www. geocities.com/doriendetombe.

[28]
It is impossible to get a complete overview of
the problem (DeTombe, 1992).

[29]
The difference between the conceptual model, in
which the cause-effect relations of the
phenomena are indicated, and the empirical model
is that in the conceptual model only an
estimation of the content of the variables is
indicated, while in the empirical model the
conceptual model is filled with real life data.

[30]
In some issues, like here the climate issue, the
goal could be to mitigate some phenomena for
instance the biogas emission. Sometimes the goal
is vague, such as increasing the level of
living, or the benefit of mankind. These kind of
goals should be carefully defined first in order
to understand what is meant with it.

[31]The desired situation can, for instance,
be the reorganization of an institute or
diminishing the discharge of chemical plants.

[32]We do not use the term ‘problem space’ to
avoid the idea that the goal, the operations and
the intermittent steps are already known and
that the solution of the problem can be found
within the problem space. It is possible,
however, that the desired situation is not
clear, or the goals are in conflict with each
other, or that the kind of operations and tools
are not clear. This is the reason we avoid the
term problem space.

[33]See for instance the situation in
France
during the revolution of 1789.

[34]'Unfreezing' means inviting people to
include, as a thought experiment, a higher level
of handling space. This can be done in order to
stimulate people to think about quite new
situations; to realize that the present
situation is also constructed by people, and as
a consequence, is not rigidly determined. The
expectation is that people will come up with
quite new, and creative ideas for changing the
problem.

[35]Time is an important constraint in urgent
problems, like for instance, with riots and
disasters (Rosenthal, 1984).